Talk:Lithuanians

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lithuanians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

More information WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: ...

Lithuania Top‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Close

South Africa

South Africa has a Jewish population of between 70-120 thousand. Most statistics show that 80% of these are of Lithuanian decent (one famous SA Lithuanian is Joe Slovo), which leads to a number way over 60,000. I was wondering if we could add this information?? Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because Jews who immigrated from Lithuania are not Lithuanian. We didn't even speak Lithuanian or Belorussian or Russian. We spoke Yiddish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capestessa (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of laurynas gucevicius why is he among the famous people?

Seriously all of these famous people I know a lot about and soem random guy laurynas gucevicius I have never heard of in there?... but balys sruoga or something in there not someone no one knows aboout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.173.37.60 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Genetics: CCR5-D32 Mutation is misleading

I found this article through a recent Reddit post claiming that 16% of Lithuanians are resistant against HIV. This is based on the following sentence in the article here:

The CCR5-D32 allele, which confers resistance to HIV infection, is present in about 16% of the Lithuanian population. Its relatively high frequency may have arisen as a response to epidemics of smallpox or plague in the region.^[1]

This sentence is highly misleading at best. Each gene in the human has two alleles. In 16% of Lithuanians one copy of the gene is said CCR5-D32 allele, while the other is not. The wildtype allele of the CCR5 gene still produces the CCR5 co-receptor and therefore those individuals are not immune to HIV. They only have a 35% lower chance of contracting HIV. Full resistance against HIV is only achieved if both copies of the CCR5 gene carry the CCR5-D32 allele, which is the case in only about 1% of Europeans. The sentence in the article is very misleading. The Reddit post shows that it's being understood as 16% of Lithuanians being completely resistant to HIV which is not the case. Who knows, it might even encourage some people to be less careful when having sex because they wrongly believe they are immune against HIV. That's just a speculation of course. The other issue that I have with that sentence is that it gives the impression that the occurrence of the CCR5-D32 allele in Lithuanians is in any way special. If you read the original PLoS One publication that is given as a ref you will realize that much of Northern Europe / the Baltics share the same high prevalence of this mutation. It is not a special genetic feature of Lithuanians. For those reasons I suggest to remove the sentence altogether. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

References

[1]
PLoS Biology — The Geographic Spread of the CCR5 Δ32 HIV-Resistance Allele

I went ahead and removed it. I agree with your points that the statement is somewhat misleading and largely trivial. I furthermore would note that the 16% statistic for Lithuanian population is not in the article as a statement but only as part of an approximate distribution map from which it's difficult to tell even the approximate number for Lithuania (the Lithuanian teritory is in both 16% and 14% zones).No longer a penguin (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. If new information comes up about this particular mutation, I think it will be better placed in the CCR5 article with the proper context rather than as a piece of trivial information in other articles. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

1991 article

External links modified

genetic heritage

new information

Ethnic Poles paragraph under "Ethnic composition of Lithuania"

One of the oldest peoples ?

@Cukrakalnis: Since the process of ethnogenesis is a very complicated one, it is nearly impossible to claim that an ethnogenesis has taken place before the occurrence of written testimony. To claim the existence of a Lithuanian people in pre-historical times from genetical evidence is simply WP:OR.

The term "nation" is a complicated one, but because of its implications also a dangerous one (are those who are Lithuanian nationals, but don't self-identify as Lithuanians not members of the "nation" ?). It should therefore only be used if support by excellent sources.

That other articles are not perfect (with respect to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG or the use of the term "nation") is no reason to introduce the same faults to this article. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR: ...material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. A statement based on what was written in Richard C. Frucht's book "Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture" (as I had done) is not OR. Your statement is false.

WP:RS were provided for the claims about Lithuanians being a nation. Wikipedia rules make no provisions for removal of sourced statements based on personal qualms.

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This is clearly the case here. The Lithuanian flag is, self-evidently, very relevant to an article about Lithuanians. Furthermore, dismissing GA articles as imperfect and going against the MOS and etc. seems very pretentious. GA articles are, by virtue of being GA, exemplary. If adding flags of a certain group to an infobox about that group as a whole are indeed infractions on Wiki MOS, then please remove the flags in the infoboxes of the articles on Canadians and British people, for the sake of all. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here. I didn't see the Frucht reference, so I have to apologize for calling it OR. I looked around a bit trying to find out who Frucht is, but didn't succeed. Still, I think we'd need a much better source than Frucht. A people normally needs to have a sense of identity and a sense of being different from other peoples in order to be called a "people". To claim such a thing thousands of years before the first written records seems to me WP:REDFLAG. Also, since Frucht doesn't seem to be an expert on Baltic prehistory, WP:RSCONTEXT should apply here. The text written at the beginning of the body, Over the centuries, and especially under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, some of these tribes consolidated into the Lithuanian nation seems to me a much more convincing explanation of how Lithuanians became what they are.

The "nation": I don't object to using the term "Lithuanian nation", but the problem of your expression "a Baltic ethnic group and nation" is that it implies the identity of Lithuanian ethnic group and nation. For this identity I didn't see any sources, so this is OR, unless I'm mistaken again.

Regarding the flag: Icelanders, the Good Article you mentioned as an example for calling an ethnic group a "nation", doesn't have one. I can't see the additional bit of information contained in the flag. What kind of information is there "in addition to the text" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Frucht, PhD, is a professor of history at Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO (at the very bottom). A PhD who is a professor of history seems like an excellent source. That said, I think I understand what your main objections are, and will rephrase some parts, while adding more sources, to make it more precise, insofar as what is the current thought on the relevant matter.

Based on Cambridge Dictionary, the definition of nation that is relevant to us is: a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions, and history, but who might not all live in one area:

the Navajo nation

From that same dictionary, ethnicity: a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups:

Ethnicity is not considered when reviewing applications.

There is a Lithuanian ethnicity. There is also a Lithuanian nation. Both are inextricably related. Regarding what you are saying about it implies the identity of Lithuanian ethnic group and nation, I am unsure about what are you objecting to. Regarding adding the word nation to the lead section, I had added three references (all of which you removed), which had the following quotes:

Some scholars even envision a gloomy scenario of the extinction of Lithuanian language and nation over the next 100 years.^[1]
The result of the Russification policy introduced by the government of Czar Nikolai I was not the withering of the Lithuanian nation and religion, but a convergence of nationality and Catholicism.^[2]
The contemporary Lithuanian nation has grown out of Catholic Lithuania.^[3]

In the 1st quote, there is a clear connection between Lithuanian language and the Lithuanian nation. Regarding the 3rd quote, perhaps I should have also included that in the sentence just before, it is written: These two ethnic Lithuanian groups were divided by national border and by religion - Prussian Lithuanians were mostly Lutherans, while ethnic Lithuanians were mostly Catholics. I suppose that this would have made the connection between the Lithuanian ethnicity and nation far clearer to you.

Like with the Union Flag in the Good Article British people, the addition of the Flag of Lithuania to this article would add information about what is the symbol that Lithuanians identify with, which so far is not included or even mentioned anywhere in an article about them.

References

[1]
Gudelis, Dangis (29 March 2016). "Lithuania Moves to Tackle Challenges Posed by Emigration - Foreign Policy Research Institute". Foreign Policy Research Institute. Some scholars even envision a gloomy scenario of the extinction of Lithuanian language and nation over the next 100 years.
[2]
Popovski, V. (2000-11-08). National Minorities and Citizenship Rights in Lithuania, 1988–93. Springer. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-4039-3284-6. The result of the Russification policy introduced by the government of Czar Nikolai I was not the withering of the Lithuanian nation and religion, but a convergence of nationality and Catholicism.
[3]
Literary Canon Formation as Nation-Building in Central Europe and the Baltics: 19th to Early 20th Century. BRILL. 2021-02-15. p. 231. ISBN 978-90-04-45771-3. The contemporary Lithuanian nation has grown out of Catholic Lithuania.

Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Frucht / "one of the oldest peoples": I already pointed to WP:REDFLAG and WP:RSCONTEXT.

Regarding nation: In Germany, where I live and where I'm teaching history, there has been an awful lot of philosophical, ethnological and political discussion about the relationship between "nation" (with various definitions), "ethnicity", "culture", and similar terms, starting in the early 19th century (or even earlier) and continuing up to this day. Since Lithuania has had productive intellectuals since many centuries ago, it would seem a miracle to me, had similar discussions not taken place among Lithuanians. I totally agree with you that we can speak of a "Lithunian nation", but I have very strong doubts that Lithuanians can be defined simply as a "nation" (without a further definition of the term "nation"), or that the "nation" is identical with the "ethnic group".

Regarding the information contained in the flag: That's not how I understand the word "information". In my understanding, adding a section on the meaning of the flag for Lithuanians would be the only way to add information about the flag to this article. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless whether Lithuanians are nation or just an ethnicity in this article, why do you keep on removing the flag? The Lithuanian Charter ^[1] adopted by the diaspora communities of ETHNIC LITHUANIANS declared yellow, green and red as colours of a Lithuanian, this flag is also heavilly used by Lithuanian diaspora regardless of affinity/connection to the Republic of Lithuania. Dziugreb (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you add a section about the Lithuanian Charter and / or the history of the flag. That section could be accompanied by any image of the flag. But since the flag contains no information, it should not be added to the infobox according to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'flag contains no information'? Dziugreb (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Since I don't see that the flag conveys information in addition to the text, I don't think the flag should be added here. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/lietuviu-charta/

Revert war about hatnotes

Please express your opinions about two versions of hathote: here annd here. --Altenmann >talk 06:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I see reverts with strange edit summasries e.g. "reverting unrelated and fringe theories" - while fringe theories are not banned in Wikipedia: they only banned as references and alternative testx per WP:UNDUE, I am puzzled to see how Polish–Lithuanian identity and Lithuania Minor are unrelated and/or fringe. --Altenmann >talk 06:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

First of all, this page is about an ethnic group. The only link that could be used in hatnote is Lithuanians (tribe) as it is a WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Meanwhile other links that do not belong here are:

Polish–Lithuanian identity – this page cannot create a confusion as there is a Polish–Lithuanian disambiguation page that has similarly named pages. So this is POV-pushing to say the least. Unrelated so also reverted addition to "See also" section.
Great Lithuanians – this page uses the anti-Lithuanian sentiment with claims like "modern Lithuanians are Samogitians", which is pseudohistory that is widespread among Belarusian "historians" (more like pseudohistorians) and sadly is gaining traction among Polish "historians" (pseudohistorians). All sources in this page are Polish so most likely it contains WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fringe theory and anti-Lithuanian sentiment so reverted addition to "See also" section.
Litvaks — Lithuanian Jews redirects to Litvaks. And Litvaks do not sound like Lithuanians so no confusion there.
Litvin – that is not an ethnic group. It is simply a Slavic word to describe inhabitans of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So that also does not cause confusion and it does not even souns like Lithuanians. Unrelated so also reverted addition to "See also" section.

Meanwhile, Lithuania Minor was not removed from "See also" section due to it being directly related to Lithuania. – sbaio 07:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging frequent editors: @Pofka:, @JorkaSSS:, --Altenmann >talk 07:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's very simple, it's ambiguous. There are: modern, old, tribe, Polish and Jewish, also umbrella term for all of those Lithuanians in other language. @Sbaio is taking it too personal and nationalistic accusing of antilithuanianism. It's nothing antilithuanian in adjectives, just clearing the ambiguousness Bildete (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

These links might belong to "see also" section, but not a hat note, which is meant for disambiguation help when article titles are nearly identical. Renata•3 11:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wherever they belong, one user is deleting them altogether, and I do not thnk this is right. I stronglly disagree that * Great Lithuanians * Polish–Lithuanian identity * Litvins are "unrelated" or "fringe theories", as the edit summary says. --Altenmann >talk 15:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: The article Great Lithuanians is just an example of Litvinist theories (niche Belarusian, Polish, Russian authors, who often are not even scientists/historians, write sources where they spread pseudo theories about Lithuania and Lithuanians, so even if there are unreliable sources with a flavor of original research WP:NATIONALISM it does not mean that they should be used in Wikipedia as WP:RS). Such pseudo theories should not go beyond the article of Litvinism because it will do immense damage to the reliability of the English Wikipedia and will turn the topics of Lithuania in the English Wikipedia into an English language version of the be-tarask.wikipedia.org where you can be immediately blocked for undefined period if you disagree to the pseudo theory that "Belarusians are real Lithuanians", which per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and scientific point of view is a total absurd.

The article Great Lithuanians should not exist because:

1) The inhabitants of Lithuania proper (also known as "Great Lithuania" or "Real Lithuania") simply are Lithuanians as this was a region of ethnic Lithuanian speakers in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (a cradle of Gediminids and Lithuanian nobility). If you perform a search "Great Lithuanians" in the Google Books you will find many sources where a phrase "Great Lithuanians" is used to identify inhabitants of Lithuania proper (Balts speaking Lithuanian language, not Slavs speaking Slavic languages);

2) The inhabitants of Lithuania minor (also known "Little Lithuania" or "Prussian Lithuania") were called Prussian Lithuanians or "Little Lithuanians" and this region of the Lithuanian language speakers was not controlled by Lithuania until the 20th century when it gained control of a part of it (see: Klaipėda Region);

3) There was an interesting phenomena of the Polish–Lithuanian identity but they are not "Great Lithuanians". The Polish–Lithuanians simply had a broader national identity as they hailed from the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania but considered themselves as citizens of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (since 1569 Union of Lublin). The Polish–Lithuanians often were polyglots and many did not even spoke the Lithuanian language. Nevertheless, ethnic Lithuanian language speakers mostly preserved their national identity as "Lithuanians", not "Polish–Lithuanians";

4) As user Altenmann already pointed out, sources provided in the article Great Lithuanians likely has WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and they are not online sources, so it is not even possible to check (but yet again: even if somebody writes in a source that the Earth is flat we should not immediately reject the scientific point of view that the Earth is round or treat it as equally valid claims).

So the only scientifically recognized groups are Lithuanians (Little Lithuanians of Lithuania minor + Lithuanians of Lithuania proper) and Polish–Lithuanians. Consequently, I remade the article Great Lithuanians into a redirect page to Lithuania proper because this is the only possible scientific association per WP:RS (except for simply calling the inhabitants of Lithuania proper as "Lithuanians" together with the Prussian Lithuanians of Lithuania minor). -- Pofka (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't remove whole sourced article because you don't like it. And now you also gonna remove Jewish Lithuanians?

Again, ambiguous: modern, old, tribe, Polish and Jewish, also umbrella term, so need disambiguation and nothing antilithuanian in adjectives Bildete (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

So it's looks like @Pofka go for multiwiki vandalism redirecting French fr:Grands Lituaniens and unattaching in wikidata from pl:Starolitwini Bildete (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Old Lithuanians = Lithuanians (tribe). Great Lithuanians is pseudohistory. Starolitwini page on Polish Wikipedia was created in 2023 by an anonymous IP and has not been edited since then, and was later translated into French and English Wikipedias using Google Translate. So it is clear that someone who translated the page into other Wikipedias did not check the sources and decided to spread that pseudohistory. – sbaio 09:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are just your opinions. There are lots of sources and biography. Someone else will call your opinion pseudohistory. Every country have it's own so called "political history" which is just a propaganda. Country just couldn't tell their citizens they history started 2, 3 or 4 generation ago. Someone could also be saying modern Lithuanians are fake, because what they found their roots in Rzeczpospolita been so strongly Polonized. Some will tell they if any other language than Polish, they speak was Ruthenian (which isn't also Russian, and even Russia is a propaganda name for Muscovy). So all one big propaganda and fake stories.

Just don't intrwiki vandalise removing pages that you don't agree with and let ambiguous terms to be put in disambiguation. Bildete (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are just your opinions. – those are opinions of credible historians and not just mine. In addition, read WP:FOC, because you started going offtopic (making comments about me). And do not accuse me of vandalism, because I did not make any edits to Polish or French Wikipedia pages. – sbaio 12:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I used plural y'all, no specify who vandalise where.

True, digression, so back to topic: modern, old, tribe, Polish and Jewish, also umbrella term for all of those Lithuanians in other language are ambiguous so to disambiguation Bildete (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Renata3 that these links can be put in "see also" section, but not in a hat note. Marcelus (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree: it is neither what {{other}} is for nor WP:DUE (e.g. we don't stuff other pages on nationalities with {{other}} links, even though some nationalities have, arguably, more complex identity). -- Mindaur (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Again it's not antilithuanian to use adjectives and to clear the ambiguous, you are taking it too personal and too nationalistic. It's ambiguous, need a disambiguation Bildete (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pofka is continuing multilanguage and wikidata removing of article, nothing else than vandalism Bildete (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Is not only vandalism of @Pofka, he is removing birth of place of NBA players from Lithuanian SSR to Lithuanian. Just history whitewashing, if someone was born in CCCP, he couldn't be born in country that had independence in 1990. Also coming back to topic, if there is history and adjectives it couldn't be whitewashed and need to be clarified with disambiguation. Bildete (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

And now @Sbaio join nationalist propaganda whitewash removing LtSSR birthplace from basketball players, creating WP:BATTLEGROUND, he also deleting from his talk. Looks a bit like @Pofka could be his sockpuppet Bildete (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bildete you need to have a strong evidence to throw such accusations, and I wouldn't do it on a article talk pages; if you think that something is fishy best way is to report it on noticeboard. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Relarding removal of LtSSR: this has nothing to do with "nationalist propaganda". The annexation of Baltic States was not recognized internationally, so some editors may have an opinion that one cannot have an de-jure illegal entity as a birthplace. This posityion is understandable, but must be discussed in WIkipeiida in a centralized way using WP:RFC. @Bildete: @Sbaio: @Marcelus: @Pofka: - WHich place you think is best to discuss the issue once and for all: Template talk:Infobox person, Talk:Baltic states, or elsewhere? --Altenmann >talk 22:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Where this claim came from? And it's a dangerous claim. So those basketball players didn't win a lot of Olympic medals representing Soviet Union? And teams didn't play in Soviet league? Should they be trail for cooperation with occupant and then what firing squad execution?

Okay let's go further with it? Retirement pensions payed to all regular LtSSR workers living now in Lithuania and any other law titles. If they finish studies and work for occupant they retirement, shouldn't be paid by Lithuania, but by USSR successor Russian Federation or again fire squad (by whom is there anyone left?) for collaboration with occupant.

More, wasn't Vilnius then Wilno in Poland. So if Soviet occupation finished shouldn't it comes back to Poland? (The 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania it's relation normalize and accept Polish Wilno occupation). The same as west Belarus and Ukraine back to Poland?

I don't know, maybe something happening already? They named Vilnius Airport after "writer" in Polish, who didn't even speak Lithuanian.

Really, also not a fun of USSR, but it's not a place for whitewashing. It was a part of history. And adding adjectives to disambiguation isn't antilithuanian.

It's quite obvious that whitewashing shouldn't take place, so let's have a discussion why it shouldn't happen, but really don't know where, but thanks for pointing out that necessity Bildete (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: The question regarding the Baltic states was discussed more than once and in more than one RFC over the years. So I doubt that it is worth discussing the same again. – sbaio 03:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bildete @Sbaio There is no reason to replace Soviet Union/Lithuanian SSR with just Lithuania. Even if for some it was de iure illegal state. But certainly edit warring isn't the way to resolve this issue. On the sidenote Čiurlionis was speaking Lithuanian. Marcelus (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marcelus he had few lessons on Duolingo "he was not enough skilful in Lithuanian" https://ciurlionis.eu/en/gallery/literature but he was self-identify as Lithuanian despite not speaking it enough, perfect example of how complex matter is and no need of nationalistic propaganda and whitewashing

@Sbaio so if "multiple", maybe it needs one big final discussion to decide if Lithuanian SSR existed or it was as everything in your opinion another fringe theory and all Soviet "collaborators" need firing squad execution.

You take it personal, accusing everyone of antilithuanianism, remove it from your talk, revertwar, starting report me on noticeboard and all start on valid ambiguous: modern, old, tribe, Polish and Jewish, also umbrella term. Bildete (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process, because most editors are against your ideas regarding hatnote. And stop going WP:OFFTOPIC, which you have done more than once in this discussion. – sbaio 15:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Again I'm always on topic: it's ambiguous (modern, old, tribe, Polish and Jewish, also umbrella term), it is a valid one and you water down conversation with personal attacks and elaborates why some of term using adjectives is fringe, offensive and antilithuanian. Tell me how they are not ambiguous and you not trying to whitewash others that you don't like

So again to simplify:

and Litvin (umbrella term mostly in Slavic languages for various meaning above) are very similar and ambiguous different identity only by adjectives. So please take part in discussion on a topic, at least if you propose: One and only 100% trust me bro real Lithuanians and rest in Fake, fringe, I don't like this term and it doesn't fit my point of view and I historical facts are offensive antilithuanian Lithuanians Bildete (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Over the years, it was discussed several times in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. -- Mindaur (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mindaur Thanks for it, contains consensus: "The arguments & sources have easily established that Soviet Union/USSR is the preferred usage". We have this topic closed, back to what is valid ambiguous Bildete (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bildete: You clearly didn't finish reading the page, where (fruther) it is clearly stated that there is no consensus. Moreover, please stop WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So how it is no consensus if there is a clear consensus consensus section. Yes, I long time ago stopped any edits in this matter, it was aggressively reverted by @Sbaio. Now as we all seen it's clear by that consensus. Could we finally focus on valid ambiguous here. Bildete (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

HERE – no consensus. Just like there is no consensus to add {{other}} here (quite the opposite). Again, please stop WP:DISRUPTIVE editing on this subject. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "HERE" mentions what I wrote the beginning of this thread: many editors rather strongly stand that Soviet Union did not have the legal sovereignty over the Baltic States. My personal opinion is ghat writing "Lithuania" instead of "LtSSR" does not bring much inaccuracy. In some cases when it is important to draw this distinction, the clarification may be done in the article body. --Altenmann >talk 17:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

South Africa

I have never heard of laurynas gucevicius why is he among the famous people?

Genetics: CCR5-D32 Mutation is misleading

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

1991 article

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

genetic heritage

new information

Ethnic Poles paragraph under "Ethnic composition of Lithuania"

One of the oldest peoples ?

Revert war about hatnotes

Copyright problem removed

Related Articles